And to think I was trying to spare myself.

[hackthis_archive]

ETA: Okay, I wrote it, posted it, decided I didn't need the blood pressure issues, got yelled at for closing it off (antheia AND copracat), and said, ah well, fuck it. Have at it.


Okay, I don't know what I love more about defamer that they throw in the phrase "manager who lives in the TV set" in reference to Kevin Connolly -- Eric to the Entourage folk -- or that they do a complete dissection of Ari appearing on the cover of Los Angeles. Oh, hey, guess who was on last month's cover? George. Yeah, I tell no lies. You want something really wild? I wrote about Ari being on the cover last week as a lark, but didn't actually know he was going to be on it. Yeah, smoke that one.

---

In other news, after reading this article* issaro asked, "Where are the naked men?" which is such a valid question, it's really is a bit like that advert, "Where's the beef?"

To which she, serialkarma and I then had an exchange about how society views the male and female bodies, who sees what as erotic*, why Playgirl is just scary, and why everybody should just keep their clothes on. Unless your name is Tom Welling.




hackthis: //"Men just aren't viewed as sex objects in the same way that women are," Min says. // Um, on what planet is this? Naked men aren't hot? Uh, maybe not to her, but to me, hell yeah! The female form, you know, I have one, doesn't really interest me all that much as long as it doesn't break down, but the male form? Right on. Obviously this is why no one thinks I could ever be a lesbian.

serialkarma: You realize she meant in a societal sense, right? In which case, I think she totally has a point. Also about how we aren't trained to view the male body in an erotic way the way we are the female body--even straight women. Ever looked at a Playgirl? A friend of mine had a subscription in college, and we all used to look at and go "Huh. You know, I think they'd be sexier with clothes. The nude male just looks kind of funny.

issaro: It is a good point. But there's the flip side she doesn't discuss. Women also take off their clothes because it gives them power. The nude female form can be and is extremely powerful. Men just feel vulnerable when nude. Whether it's a good thing or bad that that's how women get power is being debated in the article but either way it's power and I don't think men have the same sense of empowerment when naked. If that makes any sense?

hackthis: You know I just don't see the female body as erotic. At all. I have one, so not interested. Playgirl, okay, that's just wrong because they're all waxed, Mystic tanned and photoshopped to within an inch of their lives. It's just weird. And wrong. I mean, do *you* feel empowered when you're naked? [I just tend to feel a bit cold]



So, now I bring the question to you lot: What do you find erotic? Why? Why not? Do you feel empowered when you're naked or would you rather have sex full clothed and through a sheet (hey, the religions may be on to something here)? Does this whole women are empowered through nudity sound like a crock of shit to you, too? Why can't we be empowered in our pyjamas? Why does Janet Jackson get publically flogged for life for flashing at the Super Bowl? Why are men who appear naked in films seen as "brave" when it's almost de rigeur for women? Who made up these rules and where can we find him (because you know it's a man) to do very vile and unseemly things to him in the name of 'empowerment'?


Plese note that this is to be a proper discussion. I trust you all know how to behave without resorting to name-calling, unless you're talking trash about Tom Ford or the chauvisnistic industry structure, then it's okay.


*I should point out that I have said Vanity Fair and my only thoughts upon seeing said article where a) Tom Ford has no place on that cover b) Both girls could stand to eat more and c) More importantly, why are they on this cover? Neither one of them could act their way out of a paper bag!

Comments

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

A couple of ideas:

As someone mentioned race above I just had to comment, could Kiera and Scarlett look any whiter? I'll get back around to race in a second, but really the excessive whitening - an effect of I suspect both lighting and makeup - heightens the women's object-ification in the most literal sense. To me, their skin literally looked less human and more object-like (stone, porcelain, paint). They were also quite clearly posed in interaction with the viewer alone - they don't even seem to notice Ford in all his muddled, half-clothed, desiring humanity. It seems to me very much in the tradition of Western painters depicting a harem with all the attendant fear/attraction toward white slavery and sex trafficking. It would be different if the women were interacting with each other or with Ford - if there was some sense of personal desire and agency expressed by Kiera and Scarlett. Instead they are powerless objects of exchange which Ford appears to own but more literally whose image he manipulated and which will be bought and sold by the public.

As for what I find sexy, I think I implied it above - intimacy. I like pictures that express emotion between two subjects - whether they be clothed or not (or even at times that express emotion between te subject and viewer, but I think that can be more difficult to convey). My feeling is that the porn industry as currently configured works through archetypes - the naughty nurse, the repairman, the cheerleader - wherein individual eccentricity and identity get in the way of the fantasy. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that, but personally I find detail and idiosyncrasy more satisfying. On a purely visual level, show me a scar or blemish, not an evenly powdered and concealer-laden canvas.

As for my body, I love it lots, but don't necessarily expect other people to share that opinion. And generally, I'd much rather be thought of in professional terms at this point of my life than in sexual terms, so I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that actresses shouldn't have to appear nude or even particularly sexual/sexually available to be taken seriously as practitioners of their craft.

[copernica3.livejournal.com]

*Dude*, that entire first paragraph about the cover? YES. That's it, thank you. The rest of the comment is really sharp also, but that bit is just perfectly what I was thinking and trying to figure out how to say.

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

Excellent :) There's tons more going on their re: intersectons of race with gender and I haven't seen the inside of the mag, only the cover, but that was my gut reaction.

[thepouncer.livejournal.com]

In my brief foray into mainstream porn watching (stuff I found on cable, so not hardcore at all!), the total lack of intimacy was what turned me off the most. Big-breasted girls start to kiss each other and stare directly into the camera for titillation purposes - not erotic at all. Mostly gross, in fact. While a fully clothed kiss on network TV can make me pant if the two participating are totally into it. I think that's why the emo boy kissing vid that went around last year was so hot to me - they both got way into it, even if it wasn't their normal thing.

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

Precisely. I can be totally into nakedness too, but regardless of how much skin is showing I want to know why these two (or more) people are together and what it means to them.

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

smonsterbite mentioned that somewhere someone had compared the cover to Manet's Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe' (http://www.unlv.edu/faculty/gbrown/hist362/manet_dejeuner_sur_lherbe.jpg), which was totally what I thought of the first time I saw it.

As for the pastiness thing, well, I don't even need to go there, but if you're feeling the urge to participate in today's race relations discussion it's on fire over at ethrosdemon's LJ.

On a purely visual level, show me a scar or blemish, not an evenly powdered and concealer-laden canvas.

Oh, absolutely. I prefer scars to flawlessness anyday.

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

Oh Manet! That's where I've seen that! And I just love that assumption that nothing painted or inspired by "the masters" could be pronotropic or objectionable.